ACM Proposals: slowing down promotion

[John Sturgess]

The major business of this year’s Slalom ACM seems to be to consider a series of interconnected propositions designed to slow down rates of promotion.

I do not propose to discuss the detail of the proposals, because in my humble opinion the whole set of proposals is based on a series of misapprehensions about individual paddlers within the ranking system; about the means whereby slalom paddlers learn and progress; and, indeed, about what a ranking system is for! This opinion is based on the justifications for the proposals contained in the agenda; and on my knowledge and experience of bringing paddlers - particularly young paddlers - through the system.

Some of the problems quoted do not, in my opinion, exist; some do exist, but putting them right has to be the responsibility of Clubs and Club Coaches, because they relate to judgements of individual paddlers that can surely only be made by Coaches, preferably their own coaches, but certainly by coaches with current experience of bringing relatively large numbers of paddlers through the Divisions: and sadly for the sport there are not more than a dozen or so Coaches to whom that description could apply.

Tendentious Statement 1:

‘fills Division 1 with paddlers who are not yet ready for the courses Division 1 offers’

a) I do not see how an observer of Division 1 races - particularly the most difficult end-of-season races, the McConkey and Llangollen - could conclude that it is the recent promotees who ‘are not yet ready for the courses Division 1 offers’.

b) Coaches clearly think differently: which is why almost without exception they recommend their Division 2 paddlers to take Judges’ runs at Division 1 (and Premier) races! And it is a nonsense to suggest that doing a Div 1 course as a Judge is somehow ‘easier’: like when you have sat on the bank at Tully for 3 hours freezing you wotsits off, and then have ten minutes to make the start?

c) A paddler is ready to paddle a Div 1 course when he/she is ready to benefit from doing so: and that is a call which a Coach makes on an individual paddler: a ranking system cannot decide it.

‘the promotion system strips the lower divisions of ability’

a) That comment could only be true if we assumed a static model - that paddlers do not improve during an eight-month season. But in many cases that eight-month season is a third or a quarter of the whole slalom career to date of a paddler who advances from Div 4 to Div 1 in two seasons or not much more: if paddlers were not improving radically, what is all that coaching and practice for?

b) Examination of results would suggest the opposite: that paddlers who are promoted to Div 1 or Div 2 in September/October are better in September/October than paddlers promoted in March were in March i.e. by comparing their results against the paddlers who are static - who have been in the bottom half of Division 1 or Division 2 for a year or two.

c) Therefore I would argue that if we had a system like the French one whereby all results are compared to ‘M.Base’ it would tell us that the overall standard of each Division is actually as high, if not higher at the end of the season than at the beginning of the season.

‘to give developing paddlers a slightly longer apprenticeship’

a) Which Coaches feel that their paddlers need even longer racing on flat or easy water before they get onto Division 1 courses? Has anybody asked them? Clearly not those Coaches who send their paddlers to Division 1 or Prem races while they are still in Division 2.

b) That would indicate that Coaches on the contrary think that the present apprenticeship is too long: there is plenty of research out there to indicate that too much lower-level practice can be counter-productive (French Rugby coaches never train young players at half-speed, for instance, as English Rugby coaches always used to do).

c) Paddling and racing on rough water depends on the development of kinaesthetic sport-specific motor-skills; the principles of Long-Term Athlete Development say that the window of opportunity for this development closes with the onset of the growth spurt. On that basis our paddlers are already being delayed too long - or would be if they abided by the restrictions imposed by the ranking system even at present.

d) Only a paddler’s Coach (or an adult and experienced paddler in situations where there is no coach) is in a position to decide how long a developing paddler’s apprenticeship should be, and what form it should take.

e) No major Slalom nation restricts paddlers in this way - not even France, which is more restrictive than most.

My suggestion is, therefore, that we should reject this package - or rather, send it back to the Competitions Review Committee with the suggestions that:

(i) No proposals should be brought forward until there is a clear consensus as to what our Divisional system is for (on the basis of our masthead ‘Putting Paddlers First’).

ii) That consensus should also be clear on the distinction between what a Ranking System can (and therefore should be allowed to) decide about an individuals programme, and what decisions should be made by paddlers and their Club coaches - and in the case of Juniors, their families.

iii) That consensus should also deal openly with questions involving potential conflicts of interest between paddlers and organisers, so that it could never be said that the sport is slowing down promotions in order to guarantee more numbers and therefore financial viability at lower division events, and a supply of judges at higher division events ...

[Dave Royle]

John you contend that new promotees are ready for Division 1 but many obviously disagree and prefer to attend Llandysul instead of the Town Falls. Nick Penfold also stated that in his email to you.

You quite rightly say Coaches encourage paddlers to judge at a Div 1 while they are still in Div 2. Isn't that because people feel more confortable dipping their toe in the bath water rather than jumping in without testing the temperature. Unlike the hot bath, you can't get out of Division 1 until the end of the season after next and so it's perhaps a good idea for the paddler to find out if he/she is ready or not.

People like to progress and they mostly measure that progress through their ranking position. Where the ranking system becomes unstable you get large numbers of promotees and demotees. It becomes possible that a paddler who is progressing at a good rate can be promoted one year only to be demoted the following even though they are improving all the time. Now that wouldn't be good motivation, would it?

This is why Nick and others have been looking closely at the ranking system. They would wish a more stable system where people can progress at their own rate without see-sawing up and down the divisions.

They would like fewer races at the higher level so that a greater percentage of the division attend each time.

I don't see this as a barrier to the development of good young paddlers. I think a more stable division system puts forward a better challenge by allowing paddlers to race others of similar ability.

[Mick h]

I have read through what both John and Dave have had to say and feel that the problem with the standard of paddlers coming through is the lack of opportunity to race on decent water. Div 2 races use to be held on the Serpents Tail, Graveyard, Appleteewick, Stangerthwaite, Halton Rapids, River Awe, Linton Locks and I even remember competing in a slalom sprint (longer than todays races) on the international course. These where the sort of rivers that would give a paddler the skills they needed to help them in Div 1 this is the area we need to address.

[Dave Royle]

While I agree that Div 2 would benefit from some more consistant difficulty of water I don't think it is as simple as that.

More difficult water would mean the current lower third of Div 1 would be worried about going to a Div 2 ! That's no good either.

The Divisional system is much more top heavy than it used to be so if the normal distribution of ability placed Mister Average Paddler in Div 2 in the good old days, then that Mister Average is now probably in Div 1.

[davebrads]

But here you contradict yourself Dave. The old "big" division 2 races always scared the paddlers. Those paddlers are now in division 1, and they are still scared - no difference. Division 1 paddlers, even in the good old days, were scared of the Graveyard and Town Falls, so not much has changed. Slowing down promotion will mean it will be longer before the young paddlers get onto decent water, and they are the best equipped to make the transition. If a racer has already won two division 2 events, what is the point of making him race a third, he has already proved himself.

I think that the slalom committee are looking at the top heavy state of our divisional system, and using these proposals to straighten it out, where the real problem is in getting more paddlers into the sport at the bottom. The Slalom Development Plan is a much better tool for remedying this than any mucking about with the divisional system. Far better to concentrate on delivering this than playing with the rules.

[Geebs]

There are Div2 races on decent water, Tully, HPP, Bala, Washburn & Tryweryn although not many in a season but I would guess near a 50/50 split. The number of Div2 paddlers attending this "decent water" however always seems to be low compared with the Llandysul, Iron Bridge or Matlock events when they turn out in their drones, the question that needs asking is why and I think you have all answered this question in one way or another.

Perhaps the paddlers are not ready or willing to have a go on higher grade water? perhaps it is the locations? perhaps it is the more relaxed atmosphere of a 2/3/4 event rather than the hype of a 1/2? perhaps clubs are at fault for teaching purely slalom instead of river running to get people ready for decent water, perhaps expectations are too high for some of the younger/newer paddlers in the sport.

Some clubs have slalom coaches and some do not, a lot of the call has to come from the individuals on whether they want to paddle or not rather than being guided by more experianced coaches/paddlers of their ability.

I don't think there is an easy solution to this, a survey conducted over a year may shed some answers, but it would need someone to physically do it rather than relying on a website/postal survey.

[Non paddler]

John,

I understand the points you are making but what would you like to see in place of the divisional system we have?

I only have experience of observing the system we have now and think it does have some strengths. Not least the way it lets youngests not only to get experience on flatish water as they start out but also gets them enjoying take part in competitions that they can win from early on.

I would like to know the number of prem paddlers who started out being asked to race a div 4 without really understanding what slalom was about and getting hooked when they won. That capability for winning and the motivation that can bring remains throughout their journey through the divisions.

I disagree with you on what you said about new promotees to div 1 not having problems on Llangollen. It is probably true that the recent promottes who took part could cope, but there were a high number of recent promotees who did not compete. I presumed they did not compete as they felt they were not ready yet for that type of water, but I could be wrong.

[FatBoy]

I think we have to get away from thinking of the good old days - they're gone. I paddled in Div 2 in the mid 90's and yes it was a good place to be. Getting promoted from Div 3 wasn't something you could really do without training and there were more bigger water sites. But we can't magic those days back! We have less competitors and one less division. Div 1 has been diluted from then - mid season promotion, free practice etc but rightly so. A mini-prem was appropriate then with a total of 6 divisions but now it isn't with only 5 - something had to go to allow those of us (me) who were steady in the top of Div 2 to be steady in the middle of Div 1.

I think John makes all very good points and I agree with all of it. However I also agree that the number and quality coming out of Div 2 has dropped even in the last 2 seasons (OK that includes me but in fairness I did actually start training to get somewhere back towards where I was mid 90's). I feel reducing the rate of Div 2 promotion should be the short term consideration. I don't feel that this will really affect young paddlers coming through that much. On the other hand I don't know why people feel there's a problem with promotion to Prem - I don't see any of the promotions this year going up and then coming last in Prem (although in fairness I only tend to look at K1M so please correct me if I'm wrong). However this has happened with a handful of people in Div 1 (and it's only a handful). I would say actually that it was marginally easier to score points in Div 1 at the end of the season - not because too many have left to go to Prem, because as John says those that stayed then went up later did get better, but because the bottom end had more people who were a bit lost in Div 1.

[Jeff]

One of the problems as I see it, is that often promotion depends on who else turns up at an event. This is especially true in the lower divisions. To clarify let me give a (ficticious) example.

Little Jonny is competing in his first ever slalom. He wins. This could be for (at least) two reasons:

1) He is an exceptionally talented paddler.
2) His opponents were absolute beginners who could barely paddle in a straight line, never mind get through a gate.

In the current rules Jonny gets promoted to Div 3 regardless.

Coming up with a set of rules for promotion that will sort out this sort of mess is never going to be easy, and I don't envy the comittee at all!

[quaker]

I've read through all the replies above and agree and disagree with parts of the them all. However I still think that we are answering parts of a question that hasn't really been asked:
"What is the divisonal and ranking system for?". John does touch on the subject by taking examples from other countries. However without loosing focus on this thread -

We are all proposing solutions to different problems, most of which are valid but... are we trying to slow down promotion to boost lower divison events because it is a quicker solution than trying to get newer paddlers into the sport? or are we slowing down promotion because we believe that junior paddlers are getting scared away from the sport in the higher divisions?

I don't really see the speed of promotion and the ability on moving water to be linked at all. The linking should be between speed of promotion and slalom skills. Developing slalom skills at a lower level will lead to a greater skill level across the divisions and get paddlers hooked on slalom. Making water tougher through the divisons will only mean that those competent on moving water will progress (rather than those with slalom skills), and then when they find their limit will probably move onto to rodeo so loosing paddlers.

I started 14 years ago (relevant sob story) from a non slalom focused club. I turned up and enjoyed it... I hadn't a clue what it was about at the time but found it fun. The following year I progressed from 5 to 2 in the season without winning and without proper experience on moving water.... but with slalom skills. It then took me a further year to progress from Div2 to Div1. My main point in saying this is that the rapid promotion has always been around, but it now appears to be a problem because we are not getting fresh paddlers into the system.

We should really be focusing our efforts on trying to promote the sport at the lower levels. For starters asking the question why do paddlers choose other areas rather than slalom? The answers can only really come from non-slalomists and those in divisons 3 and 4.

Let us not solutioneer... let us ask the proper questions!

[Dee]

I agree that we really need to understand what the ranking system is for before we consider changing it.

I don't believe that promotion is too quick in the mens divisions - I've not heard of any who really didn't want their promotion or felt they weren't ready for the harder courses. (I think that has been some issues for the ladies but more in the 4 to 3 and 3 to 2 area). Most of the div 2s I've spoken to have been keen to get to div 1, not just for the progression but because it means better water.

Also, in the last few years the trend has reversed and numbers are on the UP.

Please let's leave the ranking system as it is for now and see if the Upward trend in numbers continues. Tamper too much and we could reverse the positive trend

[John Sturgess]

Could I thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. It certainly confirms my belief that there is a substantial degree of uncertainty about the basic questions that I have raised, and which I think we need consenus answers on before we embark on surgery.

One of the problems is that the Slalom Ranking System, because it is in theory tied to particular levels of water, has to be Canoeing’s version of the Peter Principle:

‘Everyone is promoted to their level of incompetence’

In an organisation, the Principle says, you are promoted if/because you can do your present job: there is no way of knowing whether you can do the new job.

So whenever you are in a job you are capable of, you are promoted. However when you get to a job you cannot do, you are not promoted. So you spend the rest of your working life in a job you cannot do. And eventually all jobs are filled by people who cannot do them.

Which may tell us quite a lot about the NHS - or Local Government - or education - or any big bureaucratic organisation which finds it hard to fire people for incompetence.

But that is also how our ranking system works - you are promoted to Div 1 not because you are good on Div 1 courses, but because you are good on Div 2 courses.

So how about a bit of lateral thinking? I do think that there is mileage in the concept of 'open entry' races - i.e. not 'open classes', but allowing anybody to enter any race; all appear in the same list on the results; but they only get points at their own ranking races. Then the paddler or the coach, not the Ranking System, would decide what water/what sort of course they are ready for. It would also introduce the possibility that a Div 2 paddler might go to Div 2 races to get Div 2 ranking points, but have to beat, say, the bottom 30% of Div 1 paddlers at, say, three Div 1 races to get into Div 1. But, I hasten to add, this is not a proposal - just one of many alternatives that might bear looking at before proposals are brought forward.

It would also give us the freedom to have as many or as few Divisions as we wished - because the Divisional Structure would no longer have to accommodate the needs of organisers to have enough boats at their events.

It would also allow the provision of events to become market-led, so that the Calendar responded to the needs of paddlers and organisers, rather than being micro-managed from on high.

But the crux is ... we must uncouple the Ranking System from judgements on what sort of water a paddler is or is not capable of racing on, and hand those judgements back to coaches, or to paddlers themselves if they do not have coaches.